FL – Voeltz v Obama – Denied

Klayman still is looking for a success in his foolish quest. He is not taking the news too well…

09/27/2013 DISP-MANDAMUS DY Because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000).

Source

FL – Voeltz v Obama – FL Supreme Court – Docket

Case Number: SC13-560 – Active
MICHAEL VOELTZ vs. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ETC., ET AL.
Lower Tribunal Case(s): 1D12-3489, 2012-CA-00467

Date Docketed
Description
Filed By
Notes
03/12/2013 PETITION-MANDAMUS PT Michael Voeltz BY: PT Larry Elliot Klayman 246220 FILED AS “NOTICE-APPEAL” & TREATED AS PETITION-MANDAMUS
03/25/2013 REQUEST-JUDICIAL NOTICE DA1 Scott Rille BY: DA1 Scott Rille FILED AS “LETTER DATED 03/18/2013″ ***STRICKEN. SEE ORDER DATED 05/02/2013***
04/08/2013 Fee Due $300, but not billed DCA FORWARDING FILING FEE
04/08/2013 ORDER-PROPER PETITION Petitioner’s notice, filed in this Court on March 12, 2013, has been treated as a petition for writ of mandamus seeking reinstatement of the proceedings in the district court of appeal below. Petitioner is allowed to and including April 29, 2013, in which to file a proper petition for writ of mandamus; that complies with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100, addressing why the proceedings in the district court of appeal should not have been dismissed. The failure to file a proper petition with this Court within the time provided could result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this case. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410. Please understand that once this case is dismissed, it may not be subject to reinstatement.
04/08/2013 ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER-NEW CASE Supreme Court Florida FSC BY: Supreme Court Florida FSC
04/29/2013 PROPER PETITION PT Michael Voeltz BY: PT Larry Elliot Klayman 246220
05/02/2013 ORDER-OTHER SUBSTANTIVE Scott Rille’s letter dated March 18, 2013, has been treated as a Motion to Take Judicial Notice, and said motion is stricken without prejudice to re-file after a proper motion for amicus curiae has been filed with this Court.
05/09/2013 PETITION-AMENDMENT/SUPPLEMENT PT Michael Voeltz BY: PT Larry Elliot Klayman 246220 FILED AS “NOTICE-APPEAL”
05/17/2013 MOTION-AMICUS CURIAE DA1 Scott Rille BY: DA1 Scott Rille O&7
06/14/2013 ORDER-AMICUS CURIAE DY The “Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae” filed in the above cause by Scott Rille on behalf of petitioner is hereby denied.

FL – Voeltz v Obama – FL Supreme Court – Another fine mess…

The lower Appeal’s Court refused to provide a written ruling, Klayman appealed but his notice is now interpreted as a petition for writ of mandamus… Of course, Klayman’s filings failed to meet the requirements for such a petition.

Petitioner’s notice [of appeal], filed in this Court on March 12, 2013, has been treated as a petition for writ of mandamus seeking reinstatement of the proceedings in the district court of appeal below [1D12-3489]. Petitioner is allowed to and including April 29, 2013, in which to file a proper petition for writ of mandamus; that complies with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100, addressing why the proceedings in the district court of appeal should not have been dismissed. The failure to file a proper petition with this Court within the time provided could result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this case. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410. Please understand that once this case is dismissed, it may not be subject to reinstatement.

Source

Since Klayman has filed various cases in Florida, it’s time to unravel which one is which:

The supreme court case: Case Number:  SC13-560  Lower Tribunal Case(s): 1D12-3489, 2012-CA-00467

Klayman was of course ‘outraged’ by the lower Court’s affirmance and pulled out ‘all stops’

Continue reading

FL – Voeltz v Obama – Final Opposition

Voeltz explains why it will fail

Under either scenario, it is clear that Defendant Obama has not established eligibility for the Office of the President of the United States, and it is evident that he may not, under any circumstance, establish his eligibility.

Final Opposition

First of all Obama has no legal requirement to establish his eligibility, that’s an issue for Congress. Furthermore, the suggestion that his birth to a foreign father, even though on native soil, renders him ineligible has been rejected by various courts based on the precedent of US v Wong Kim Ark.

It’s too late, and lacks in anything that would convince a court that they have standing. Still, it’s quite readable, has relevant precedential rulings.

As to the citations:

State ex rel. Shevin v. Stone, 279 So. 2d 17

State ex rel. Cherry v. Stone, 265 So. 2d 56, 58

None of them address the issue of a Presidential election since the eligibility requirements are for the electors not the President, whose eligibility is determined by Congress.